Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2003-10-07RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 7, 2003, 7:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Bill Horton, Wayne Newsom, Al Sager, and Cliff Dill Chair Barker, Members Horton and Sager Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Wayne Newsom and Cliff Dill Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 7:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Barker advised all items would remain open to public comment after 8:00 a.m. and no votes taken until 8:00 a.m. due to the earlier than published start of the meeting. This procedure was adhered to for all items on the agenda. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the September 9, 2003 meeting. 2. LOT 3. MURPHY SUBDIVISION. 350 STANLEY AVENUE. APPLICANT: JOY BRYANT - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 5.2.D.8 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a six foot variance from the ten foot building separation requirement to build a carport four feet from the northern side of the existing duplex. The dimensions of the proposed carport are twenty-two feet wide by twenty-two feet long for a 484 square foot footprint. The site plan shows a second carport on the southern side of the duplex. A variance is not requested for this carport; however, the location shown for the second carport does not comply with the ten foot building separation requirement and will need to be relocated prior to Planning sign off on the building permit. The existing duplex is a legal nonconforming use that can continue in accordance with EVDC Chapter 6. There are special circumstances associated with this lot. The lot is undersized for the “E” Estate zoning district. This lot has platted setbacks that are more restrictive than the EVDC building/structure setbacks. The request is a sixty percent variance and is substantial. The proposed addition may not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant could build a carport in the flat, grassy area to the west of the duplex. This would require redesign of the driveway. The applicant could also build a carport or garage attached to the northern side of the duplex that could comply with setbacks. The variance, if granted, offers the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief to build the proposed carport as shown on the site plan. Mike Kingswood was present to represent the applicant. He questioned the need for a surveyor to come out to the property twice. He feels that setting the footings is just a function of measuring with a tape from the survey stakes. He would like to remove the condition of approval requiring a second visit to verify the foundation by a surveyor. He feels it is an unnecessary expense. Director Joseph stated it is reasonable to require a surveyor to set the survey stakes and verify the footings prior to pouring, if a variance is granted and the work is done with zero tolerance to the setback approved. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Horton) to approve a six foot (6) variance from the ten foot (10) building separation requirement to build a carport four feet (4) from the northern side of the existing duplex and the motion passed RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 October 7, 2003 with two absent. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 2. Compliance with the submitted plans. 3. LOT 2. BLOCK 6. RECLAMATION SUBDIVISION. 250 & 252 THIRD STREET. APPLICANT: WARREN & KAREN SPRINGER - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a five foot variance from the ten foot rear yard setback to build a storage shed five feet from the rear (southern) property line. The dimensions of the proposed one-story storage shed are twelve feet wide by thirty-four feet long for a 408 square foot footprint. The applicant proposes removing the two existing storage sheds on the lot and replacing them with the 408 square foot storage shed. This shed would be located on the southwest corner of the lot and would remove a portion of the existing driveway. The lot is undersized for the “R-2” Two-Family Residential zoning district. There can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. The existing duplex can continue to be used. This is a fifty percent variance which is substantial. The proposed addition may not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed storage shed can not be placed on the lot without a variance. The variance request offers the least deviation form the regulations that will afford relief. Warren Springer, applicant, was present. He spoke with Dave Cearlock, State Electrical Inspector, regarding the need for 12.5 feet of clearance from the top of the proposed storage shed and the existing power line. Mr. Springer does not believe this will be an issue. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Sager) to approve a variance request of five feet (5) from the rear yard setback of ten feet (10) to buiid a storage shed five feet (5) from the rear property line (southern) and the motion passed with two absent. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. The two existing storage sheds shall be removed from the lot. Compliance with Greg Sievers’ memo to Alison Chilcott dated September 24 2003. Compliance with Jim Duell’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated September 23, 2003. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. Prior to Planning Department sign off on a building permit for the storage shed, a registered land surveyor shall calculate the existing and proposed lot coverage and provide this information to staff. As required by EVDC Section 4 Table 4-2, lot coverage shall not exceed fifty percent. The applicant shall submit a building permit application that demonstrates compliance with EVDC Section 7.11.D Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements, i.e. a minimum of four parking spaces must remain on site to serve the two units. That prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall correct any code violations found by the Code Enforcement Officer. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 October 7,2003 4. LOT 14. LITTLE VALLEY 1ST FILING. INTERSECTION OF DOLLAR LAKE ROAD AND BLACK SQUIRREL DRIVE. APPLICANT: HOWELL & J'ANN WRIGHT. - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 AND SECTION 1.9.E OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicants wish to build a single-family dwelling with a detached 30-foot wide garage. The lot is located in Little Valley, at the intersection of Dollar Lake Road and Black Squirrel Drive, and is zoned “RE” Rural Estate, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5-acres and 50-foot building setbacks. The lot is relatively flat, at 1.8 acres is sub-sized for the zone district, has an unusual shape, and has an “L” shaped access easement jutting from the west property line. The required setback is measured from the edge of the easement, not the actual property line. Staff finds no special circumstances or conditions that would result in practical difficulty in conforming to the height limit. The applicant has submitted a design that indicates ability to comply with the height limit with the exception of one small area. The fact the majority of the house is able to comply indicates there is no special hardship associated with this lot. The property could be developed without variances. The proposed house could be situated on the lot in a manner that would reduce the requested setback requests, though the proposed house size and shape would require a setback variance. The house could be redesigned to allow compliance with the setback and height requirements. The site plan could be revised so the house runs parallel to the slope, which would minimize or eliminate the need for a height variance. Staff recommends a “limits of disturbance” be delineated on the site plan. This is because the applicant requests to build outside the mandated building setbacks. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through methods other than variances. The Little Valley Owner’s Association has submitted a letter of support for this variance request. Paul Bennett of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the alignment of Black Squirrel Drive limits the buildable area. The applicant IS asking for a height variance for a small portion of the house in order to limit site impact and to save some trees. The applicant is willing to lower the finish floor to meet the height requirement. He stated he understands there is no hardship for the eastern property line; therefore the applicant is willing to move the garage within the 50 foot eastern setback. He would like to propose a 25 foot western setback from the Black Squirrel easement and leave the garage detached. Boa^ Member Horton questioned how many trees would be saved by granting the he'ght variance. Mr. Bennett stated that 3 or 4 trees in the 15 inch category would fQe °! lf they .0W®!:ed the finish floor t0 meet the hei9ht requirement. Planner Shirk the site d^s<turbance attaCh th6 9ara9e and by detachin9the garage you will increase Public Comment: None. Mr. Bennett stated that attaching the garage would require additional grading due to the natural drainage running between the proposed house and detached garage. Kn?.eruShl?f u6 ?the P|acement of the house is fine but he still feels the garage should be attached to the house. Director Joseph advised the drainage is a valid reason for separating the garage from the house. ?OVe^d and ®erconded (Sager/Horton) to approve a variance request of twenty-five feet (25) from the western side yard setback of fifty feet (50) to build a single family home and detached garage twenty-five feet (25) from the western property line as shown on the drawing attached to the end of the minutes and the motion passed with two absent. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Redesign of the site plan to meet approved setbacks. Design should follow example shown in Figure 1 .B of Staff report. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 7, 2003 2.Compliance with Limits of Disturbance standards set forth in Section 7.2.D of the EVDC. 3. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code 4. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 5. Compliance with the site plan. It was moved (Sager) to approve a height variance of no more than 38 feet as determined by the building permit submittal. There was no second and the motion died. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Barker) to disapprove a height variance of 38 feet and the motion passed - - voting “no” Sager. Those voting “yes” Horton and Barker. Those 5.LOT 11, PARK HILLS SUBDiVISiON. 287 JOEL ESTES DRIVE. APPLICANT: STEVE MCNEILL - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE.' " ----------------------------- This item was continued from the August 5, 2003 and September 9, 2003 Board meeting. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This request has been before the Board on two previous occasions. The original request has been amended, and no longer requires a side yard setback variance. The nature of the request has been changed to increase the setback from the east property line (Bucher) and to increase the setback and reduce the amount of encroachment along Mall Road. This has resulted in an increase of encroachment along Joel Estes Drive. In addition, the applicant has redesigned the proposed house to eliminate the third story, which would have been out of character for the neighborhood. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant impact fromrelohrhome9n ‘he addi‘i0n and 3 Ph0t0 SimUlati°n Sh0Win9 ,he Public Comment: ^teofan UCHr4tfl?p5HJthel ESteS Drive-stated he is in support of the new submitted prf nlTll- H u djheIrf are current|y 5 cars/trailers parked along the road which moved SpathaZard‘ He.would like t0 see the cars that are not used every day moved before the variance is granted. y y Sn r0f'?ha,?nnn)t!d tI®'® ^ aC,i''! parl<in9 enforcement in the unincorporated portion ^ the County. There is no mechanism to prevent parking on public rioht of ways He does however feei it is within the discretion of tte eSard to SPac^a condition of approvai that the cars be removed from the right-of-way He stated the Board also has the discretion to place a time limit on the completion of thi p“ reque^aSHe fl!o hat' c63'®5 DrlV®' SPa°ke in 0PPosition *6 proposed variance rnaH u H f concems ^garding the vehicles parked on the side of theemergeiPcy.068 n0' be"eVe ® fir® ®n9in® C°Uld driVe down 'he '•oad 'p® avent°of an reoITesrh HnpeLs0PnJOel Est®S«?li,''e' Spoke in 0PPosition ,0 the proposed variance storage on the site S Parkin9 °f VehiCl®S °n ,he r0adway and with Mr. Sheldon stated the vehicles parked on the right-of-way were removed from the ^trnrpeth at 0arf ?request- The variance is needed in order to build a garage to nSnhhnrQ add!!l0fnal ,tem.s- He stated the right-of-way is narrow; however9 the ctoF 0U d f0rm an imPr°vement district to widen the roadway. Mr. Sheldon 2 ntpmInp|aPP ICa?h V?U-lld a9ree t0 limit the number of cars parked on the street to ThP pnn^ipL f rS‘ Tbe|.|:ai,er and unl,censed car will be removed after construction. The applicants would like a year from this November to complete construction. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 October 7,2003 The Board questioned how they could enforce a time limit. Director Joseph stated the applicant would have to come back to the Board and ask for an extension. The Board could at that time move to deny the requested extension and require the applicant to remove what has already been built. Mr. Sheldon stated the County already has a rule that the building must be done within 2 years. He stated the intent of the applicant is to complete the shell of the building as soon as possible. Board Member Horton does not understand the need for a time limit. Chair Barker explained that in past testimony it was a concern of the neighbors. Neighbors have testified that past construction on the site has taken months if not years to complete. Board Member Horton stated he is aware of the past testimony. He stated he has reviewed the past proceedings. Chair Barker stated he is concerned with the timing issue and a year seems like a long time. He has a problem with limiting the number of cars parked on the right-of- way. Mr. Sheldon stated that a couple of retaining walls need to be constructed first before construction of the foundation can begin. The applicants would like to get the foundation in before the ground freezes. He stated the applicant has the money and is ready to move fon/vard. Charlie Phillips, architect, advised construction drawings have not been completed for this project, and a month or two would be needed before construction could begin. Also, a building permit would need to be obtained before construction could begin. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Horton) to approve a variance request of twenty feet (20) from the Mall Road setback of fifty feet (50) and thirty-four feet (34) from the Joel Estes Drive setback to build an addition to an existing cabin thirty feet (30) from Mall Road and sixteen feet (16) from Joel Estes Drive and the motion passed with two absent. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Compliance with the site plan. 2 3. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared bv a registered land surveyor. y 4. New construction shall be consistent in style, materials, and color of existing cabin. This shall be addressed with the building permit submittal. 5. The applicant shall have one year from October 15, 2003 to complete construction. 6. REPORTS Director Joseph welcomed new Board Members Bill Horton and Cliff Dill. He also thanked Judy Lamy for her service. 7. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR It was moved and seconded (Sager/Barker) that Bill Horton be nominated for Vice-Chair and it passed unanimously with two absent. There being no further business. Chair Barkei^journed the meeting at 8:45 a.m Jarker, Chair J^queiyn Williamson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 7,2003 BLACV: SQUIRREL Dl EDSEOPROAO EASEMENT 25* SETBACK LINE RELOCATED HOUSE EDGE EASEMENT RELOCATED GARA( /25* SETBACK LINE 10* UTILITY EASEMENT 50‘SETBACK LINE PROP LINE